Sometimes we ruminate on the fact that legal malpractice law is written by attorneys, utilized against attorneys, and rulled on by attorneys.  There is no way around the conundrum.  In Christ v Law Offs. of William F. Levine & Michael B. Grossman ; 2010 NY Slip Op 03056 ; Decided on April 13, 2010 ; Appellate Division, Second Department  we perceive a glimmer of how attorneys may get a leg up, or an easier time in legal malpratice litigation.  From the case:
 

"The plaintiffs retained attorney Harold Solomon to prosecute a property damage claim against the Village of Garden City arising from a sewer backup at their house. Solomon failed to timely commence a negligence action against the Village based on that claim. Thereafter, the plaintiffs hired the defendants in this action to represent them in a legal malpractice action against Solomon, which the defendants commenced. In an order dated April 18, 2002, the Supreme Court (Franco, J.), granted Solomon’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in that legal malpractice action. The Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs failed to raise any triable issues of fact as to the Village’s negligence, as there was no evidence showing that the sewer backup was a recurring condition or that the Village had notice of the defect which caused the sewer backup. The plaintiffs subsequently discovered documents which allegedly demonstrated a history of sewer [*2]backups in the vicinity of their home. They also discovered that both Solomon and the defendants had made Freedom of Information Law requests (see Public Officers Law article 6) for those documents, but had failed to follow up when the Village did not respond to those requests. The plaintiffs then commenced this action, alleging the defendants committed legal malpractice by failing to obtain the documents relating to recurring sewer backups in their neighborhood prior to the dismissal of their action against Solomon.

The plaintiffs retained attorney Harold Solomon to prosecute a property damage claim against the Village of Garden City arising from a sewer backup at their house. Solomon failed to timely commence a negligence action against the Village based on that claim. Thereafter, the plaintiffs hired the defendants in this action to represent them in a legal malpractice action against Solomon, which the defendants commenced. In an order dated April 18, 2002, the Supreme Court (Franco, J.), granted Solomon’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in that legal malpractice action. The Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs failed to raise any triable issues of fact as to the Village’s negligence, as there was no evidence showing that the sewer backup was a recurring condition or that the Village had notice of the defect which caused the sewer backup. The plaintiffs subsequently discovered documents which allegedly demonstrated a history of sewer [*2]backups in the vicinity of their home. They also discovered that both Solomon and the defendants had made Freedom of Information Law requests (see Public Officers Law article 6) for those documents, but had failed to follow up when the Village did not respond to those requests. The plaintiffs then commenced this action, alleging the defendants committed legal malpractice by failing to obtain the documents relating to recurring sewer backups in their neighborhood prior to the dismissal of their action against Solomon.

A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached its verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). Whether a jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence does not involve a question of law, but rather, requires a discretionary balancing of many factors (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499). It is for the trier of fact to make determinations as to the credibility of the witnesses, and great deference is accorded to the factfinders, who had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses (see Bertelle v New York City Tr. Auth., 19 AD3d 343). Under the circumstances, the jury’s determination that the Village was negligent in maintaining its sewer system was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence. "